I oppose adoption. The draft introduces huge amount of additional complexity, both for implementors and operators of DoH. This raises the bar for both smaller vendors and operators, thus leading to more centralization.
Additionally, the problem it attempts to solve is not DoH-specific, or even DNS-specific, yet it only provides a solution for DoH. On 17/03/2021 14.00, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > This starts a DPRIVE WG call for adoption for > draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh/). > Please reply to the mailing list with your views (positive or negative) > on the WG adopting the document and your supporting arguments. > > This call will end on March 31, 2021 at 11:59pm UTC. > > Regards, > Brian & Tim > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > -- Tomas Krizek PGP: 4A8B A48C 2AED 933B D495 C509 A1FB A5F7 EF8C 4869
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
